On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King"<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To suppose computation requires a material process would be
materialism, wouldn't it?
Not quite, a dualist model would require that some form of
process occur for computations and would go even further in
computations from not having a physical component but would not
which it was. This way we preserve computational universality without
having to drift off into idealism and its own set of problems.
True, it could be dualism (or an involuted monism) too, but I wouldn't
call a theory of mind which depends on material processes
You might if you thought that's all that was needed to make a mind,
in contrast to some supernatural soul stuff. It basically boils
down to whether you suppose there are some things that are real
(e.g. some things happen and some don't, or some stuff exists and
some doesn't) and some aren't or you suppose that everything happens
and exists. In the latter case there's really no role for ur stuff
whose only function is to mark some stuff as existing and the rest not.
Interesting role that you have cast the physical world into, but
ironically "stuff whose only function is to mark some stuff as
existing and the rest not" and "everything happens and exists" do not
sleep together very well at all. The "everything happens and exists"
hypothesis has a huge problem in that is has no way of sorting the
"Tom sees this and not that" from the " from "Dick sees this and not
that" and "Jane sees this and not that", where as the "stuff whose
only function is to mark some stuff as existing and the rest not" can
be coherently defined as the union of what Tom, Dick and Jane see and
do not see.
The idealists would have us believe that along with numbers their
operations there exists some immaterial stratifying medium that sorts
one level of Gedel numbering from another. I am reminded of a video I
watched some time ago where a girl had three sealed jars. One
contained nothing, one contained 4 6-die and the third contained
1,242,345,235,235 immaterial 6-die. ...
The physical world is very much real, even if it vanishes when we
look at it closely enough. But we might consider that just as it
vanishes so too does the ability to distinguish one set of numbers
from another. If the ability to distinguish this from that itself
vanishes, how are we to claim that computations exist "independent of
Where did I claim that. I was just pointing out the genesis of
"everything theories"; you did notice that this is called the
"everything-list" didn't you?
I commented on what you wrote. Care to respond or will you beg my
question? How does immaterial based "everything theories" deal with this
problem that I just outlined?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at